2013 Election Year Party Policies- Labor

[Rosy]

A place to discuss Labor policies as they come to hand.

Gillard announces election date
By Malcolm Farr, Simon Benson
news.com.au
January 30, 201312:42PM

Julia Gillard has announced an election for September 14. Picture: Ray Strange Source: News Limited

VOTERS will go to the polls on September 14 in what will mark the longest election campaign in the nation's history.

In a speech at the National Press Club Prime Minister Gillard confirmed the election date.

Ms Gillard has confirmed she spoke with NSW Independents Tony Windsor and Rob Oakeshott about the election date before making the announcement today.

Mr Oakeshott said: “I welcome the certainty of a September 14 federal election date announced. Parliament runs full term, election date confirmed.”

The Prime Minster began her speech, which outlined her priorities for 2013, by declaring most Australians fear our children will not lead a better life than themselves.

"I want this audience to feel all the force of that concern. I most certainly do, the Prime Minister told the National Press Club in Canberra.

Ms Gillard pointed to insecurity for many following the global financial crisis, and extra pressures fro the ordeal of long commutes to work to paying household bills.

"It means it can be a struggle to make ends meet and it can seem far harder to get ahead in the post-GFC world,'' she said.

"It means we are more likely than earlier generations to face the challenges of parenting and caring for older parents at the same time.
"Combined with the travel time to work and, for some, concern about community safety, life can be very stressed and pressurised.

"Through all this, we are more connected with information about world events and causes of community anxiety than ever before.

"Over time, the uncertainties and pressures we live with have led some of us to be concerned that our children won't live a better life than us.''

The speech highlighted families as a priority for Labor and the focus of broader economic policy this election year with the Prime Minister pledging to make the next generation "stronger, fairer, smarter''.

"As a generation of Australians, our greatest task, our highest calling, is to build a future of greater shared opportunity and less risk for the next generation,'' said Ms Gillard.

"I want to eradicate any sense we can't get this done. As a nation, we are strong, fair by instinct, smart.

"I know that we have it within us to ensure the next generation of Australians is stronger, fairer, smarter. I am an optimist; everything we have achieved as a nation reinforces that optimism, everything we are planning delivers on it.''

But Ms Gillard foreshadowed tough Budget measures - what she called "long-term saving measures'' - to pay for that security by warning that governments were facing their toughest revenue raising periods for years.

As expected, she nominated increased school funding and creation of a National Disability Insurance Scheme as the destinations for much of the savings, but did not in her speech say where the cuts would be made.

The Prime Minister said government revenue per unit of national output was at the lowest since the early 1990s.

"In other words, for a given amount of economic income generated, less money is finishing in the public purse, to be used for the Australian people,'' she said.

"We are experiencing a proportional reduction in the amount of revenue being generated from any given amount of economic income. This is part of a trend which is felt worldwide.

"Now, the immediate effect of this was made clear by the Deputy Prime Minister (Treasurer Wayne Swan) last December.

"While within our medium-term fiscal strategy, spending is tightly constrained, the amount of tax collected from all sources -- particularly from company tax -- is significantly lower than independent forecasters or the Treasury have anticipated.


"Compared to the public revenue which was forecast on the eve of the global financial crisis in 2008, what has actually been collected in tax since is far lower -- on average, lower by more than $30 billion every year.

"Even compared to what was forecast once the worst of the global financial crisis had passed, annual revenue is tens of billions of dollars below what was expected.''

 

[Baloo]

A long campaign could mean the ALP are preparing for a sustained attack on Tony "No Policy"Abbott. I reckon its going to be a gutter brawl of the likes we've never seen in Aus before.

 

[Tigers of Old]

Think Julia's got a fair bit of work to do to win this election. We'll see what unfolds.

 

[Rosy]

Yep agree ToO. I guess we all look for things that affect us personally. I'll be taking note of both parties policies in regard to primary production. The last 2 years are the best we've ever had on the farm so I hope that continues.

 

[K3]

Just plonked this in the other thread but probably better here.

For mine a great policy...

Better access to dental care for Australians
Tanya Plibersek posted Wednesday, 29 August 2012

More than three million children will be eligible for government-subsidised dental care, in the same way they’re now entitled to Medicare-funded GP visits.

Under a landmark $4 billion package, the Gillard Labor Government will also provide dental services to more than one million low income adults and Australians in rural and remote areas, focusing especially on pensioners.

The Dental Health Reform package is an unprecedented initiative to address increasingly poor oral health amongst Australians – in particular, among low and middle income families.

The six-year package announced today includes:

$2.7 billion for around 3.4 million Australian children who will be eligible for subsidised dental care;
$1.3 billion for around 1.4 million additional services for adults on low incomes, including pensioners and concession card holders, and those with special needs; who will have better access to dental care in the public system; and
$225 million for dental capital and workforce will be provided to support expanded services for people living in outer metropolitan, regional, rural and remote areas.

“While Medicare and free hospital care have been a basic right for Australians for decades, millions of people in this country still go without adequate dental care,” Ms Plibersek said.

“Labor believes we have a responsibility to ensure Australians who are least able to afford to go the dentist, and particularly children, should be given access to government-subsidised oral health care.”

Ms Plibersek said recent studies showed children in the poorest areas experience one and a half times the amount of tooth decay and cavities, compared to those in the wealthiest areas.

“We also know that low income households have more than double the number of family members with untreated tooth decay compared with high income households.”

Ms Plibersek said the $4 billion package was in addition to the $515 million announced in the 2012-13 Budget, which included a blitz on public dental waiting lists, additional dental training and support for people in rural and remote areas.

“This package will deliver a better system of dental health care for Australians that is accessible, affordable and focuses on prevention.”

Children from the aged two to 17 in Family Tax Benefit Part A-eligible families will be entitled to subsidised basic dental treatment, capped at $1,000 per child over a two-year period. This $2.7 billion initiative aims to address dental decay in children, which has been increasing since the 1990s.

“Investment in our children’s teeth is an investment in the future,” said Ms Plibersek.

“We know that poor childhood oral health leads to poor adult oral health, and has wide-ranging impacts on general health and wellbeing, including strain on our health and hospital system.’’

As part of the package, the Gillard Government is providing $1.3 billion to states and territories under a National Partnership Agreement to expand public dental services for low income adults. This funding will depend on the states and territories at least maintaining their current level of dental care services.

And $225 million in funding for dental infrastructure in outer metropolitan, rural and regional areas will assist more Australians, regardless of their location, in gaining access to high quality dental care.

The Dental Health Reform package will replace the Medicare Teen Dental Plan and the Chronic Disease Dental Scheme (CDDS). The CDDS, introduced by the Howard Government, was poorly targeted, saw significant waste and over-servicing and failed to address the capacity constraints in existing public dental services.

Legislation to enshrine the new entitlement for children will be introduced, with passage expected this sitting session.


http://www.alp.org.au/federal-government/news/better-access-to-dental-care-for-australians/

 

[Liverpool]

Re: Talking Politics

Labor's dental health agenda gets a big tick from me, been long overdue.

http://www.alp.org.au/federal-government/news/better-access-to-dental-care-for-australians/

Fully support the plan K3.

Only problem is that when this idea was introduced middle of last year, there were economists who have estimated that there would be a big black hole in the budget (approximately $120-billion).

The current government made this dental promise on the proviso that the budget would be returned to surplus and when this did not eventuate, they have still chosen to push ahead with such schemes.

So while it sounds good on paper and we can all applaud such an initiative, is it really financially viable or sustainable at the moment?

Its why I have said that whether Gillard stay in charge after the election or Abbott takes over, there is going to be a lot of hard work and decisions that need to be made to get the budget back into some sort of respectable position.

My opinion is that the ALp have no intention of doing that and would rather try and be popular by just spend, spend, spend while getting pats on the back for their good work....but sooner or later, someone has to pick up the tab.

 

[pahoffm]

Just a question to someone who may know.

Now that an election has been called, does this mean that it now locks in both leaders, Gillard & Abbott, of their respective parties until after the election?

My recollection is that the Labour Party changed leaders from Hayden to Hawke an hour before Fraser called the 1983 election; and if Fraser had gone to the GG two hours earlier, the Labour could not have changed leaders. That's my recollection.

Is this correct?

 

[KnightersRevenge]

Just a question to someone who may know.

Now that an election has been called, does this mean that it now locks in both leaders, Gillard & Abbott, of their respective parties until after the election?

My recollection is that the Labour Party changed leaders from Hayden to Hawke an hour before Fraser called the 1983 election; and if Fraser had gone to the GG two hours earlier, the Labour could not have changed leaders. That's my recollection.

Is this correct?

I don't know the answer, but I assume that is only after the caretaker period starts. Fraser called a snap election so he went straight to the GG didn't he? This is a bit different I think...

 

[TigerForce]

It would be good, but I doubt this would happen in either party, otherwise destabilisation would probably be used as ammunition.

Looks like Kevin13 is a possibility.

 

[K3]

Re: Talking Politics

Fully support the plan K3.

Only problem is that when this idea was introduced middle of last year, there were economists who have estimated that there would be a big black hole in the budget (approximately $120-billion).

The current government made this dental promise on the proviso that the budget would be returned to surplus and when this did not eventuate, they have still chosen to push ahead with such schemes.

So while it sounds good on paper and we can all applaud such an initiative, is it really financially viable or sustainable at the moment?

Its why I have said that whether Gillard stay in charge after the election or Abbott takes over, there is going to be a lot of hard work and decisions that need to be made to get the budget back into some sort of respectable position.

My opinion is that the ALp have no intention of doing that and would rather try and be popular by just spend, spend, spend while getting pats on the back for their good work....but sooner or later, someone has to pick up the tab.

Yep, good points there Liverpool but I suppose the way I look at it is a bit different. To me fixing up/ keeping kid's teeth healthy will have a very positive flow-on effect in improving their overall health. Just as obesity costs us hundreds of millions of dollars a year, improving our dental health will contribute to large savings in health costs for us tax payers and the Govt. If you really run with this thinking, you could extrapolate it out to show that kids will miss less schooling, due to dental and other sickness, so we should come out a bit ahead there too.

I hope that whichever party wins the next election keeps this policy going.

 

[mld]

Just a question to someone who may know.

Now that an election has been called, does this mean that it now locks in both leaders, Gillard & Abbott, of their respective parties until after the election?

My recollection is that the Labour Party changed leaders from Hayden to Hawke an hour before Fraser called the 1983 election; and if Fraser had gone to the GG two hours earlier, the Labour could not have changed leaders. That's my recollection.

Is this correct?

There is no constitutional or legislative restriction on changing of leaders following dissolution of government. I believe Fraser's attempt was to make it politically difficult for Labor to change leaders during an election campaign.

Regardless, Gillard hasn't requested the governer general to dissolve parliament, and the government is not operating according to caretaker conventions.

 

[tigergollywog]

I dont thinki I can hack a 3/4 year campaign. I hope Tigers win some big games this year to keep moral up. Julia calling the election this far out is in no small part her honouring a promise to Oakshot and Windsor. Morally admirable IMO, but about as smart as the Tigers selling a home game to cairns.

 

[pahoffm]

There is no constitutional or legislative restriction on changing of leaders following dissolution of government. I believe Fraser's attempt was to make it politically difficult for Labor to change leaders during an election campaign.

Regardless, Gillard hasn't requested the governer general to dissolve parliament, and the government is not operating according to caretaker conventions.

Thanks for that, as I believe this may be the correct answer.

Although Gillard has designated September 14th as election day, we don't know if she has visited the GG, and government has certainly NOT been dissolved.

Ergo, either party can change leaders.

 

[Brodders17]

we don't know if she has visited the GG,

we do know that she has not visited the GG. nothing has changed except everyone now knows the election date. she has said 6 weeks out from the election, August, writs will be issued and the gov will go into caretaker mode.

 

[evo]

I dont thinki I can hack a 3/4 year campaign.

Do what I do and just ignore most of it mate - particularly the print media. 95% of it is white noise anyway.

2 weeks before the election read up on the parties policies and vote accordingly.

Seriously, 9 months out from an election who the *smile* cares if Abbott hasn't costed all his policies, or what Gillard's boyfriend thinks of prostate exams.

 

[Willo]

or what Gillard's boyfriend thinks of prostate exams.

:fing32
;D

At least it brought plenty of focus on the subject (at hand)

 

[KnightersRevenge]

:fing32
;D

At least it brought plenty of focus on the subject (at hand)

I think you've really put your finger on it. *groan*

 

[Azza]

Top article. Says it all really.

------------------

Labor has lost the plot, and the narrative

If you're inclined to take a long-term view of politics, the hand-wringing on whether Julia Gillard should stay or go is really just so much white noise.

Labor is in crisis, but not principally for the reasons that occupy the commentariat.

A party without a narrative is reduced to seeking your support as a lesser evil. Hence Labor's focus on Tony Abbott.

It's not about a bitterly divided caucus, or political miscalculations such as the ham-fisted Nova Peris saga. It's not even simply about policy missteps such as the creation of an impotent mining tax.

Labor's problems are not nearly so managerial and technocratic. They are much, much bigger than that.

Labor's problem is ideological. It doesn't really mean anything any more, and probably hasn't since Paul Keating lost power in 1996. Sure, Labor has had its moments - most notably in its campaign against WorkChoices, which jolted its ideological memory and gave it a momentary reason to exist.

But this was no ideological revival. It was reactive: a political opportunity well taken rather than a world view reborn.

Only John Howard's pro-business, anti-union zeal, unencumbered by any resistance in the Senate, made this possible. After WorkChoices, much as before it, what then?

This isn't an optional, esoteric extra. Governments ultimately thrive on narrative. Voters are not merely electing a suite of set policies. They are electing a party that will respond to future, unforeseen policy questions. They therefore need to know what you're about. That's what a clear consistent story tells them.

A party without a narrative is reduced to seeking your support as a lesser evil. Hence Labor's focus on Tony Abbott.

Every successful government can be summarised in a phrase or two. Bob Hawke: a new, deregulated, globalised economy. Keating inherited that story, then added Asia, a growing economic power in our backyard we should embrace by shedding our British skin. Howard was about nationalism, security and capital's triumph over labour. Everything - asylum seeker policy, counterterrorism, foreign affairs, even unsolicited social commentary about minority groups - was tailored to fit the story.

Exactly what story has Labor told us since 2007? It began with something about ''Australian working families'', but that too was a relic of the WorkChoices campaign. After that, it has been mostly a blancmange of conflicting messages. Perhaps it started when Kevin Rudd wanted to be ''tough but humane'' on asylum seekers. It took Gillard only a matter of days as Prime Minister to continue the incoherence, declaring both that the number of boat people arriving in Australia was much smaller than many imagined, before swiftly going on to reassure those worried about invading hordes that their concerns were legitimate, and that they're ''certainly [not] racist''. We learn nothing from this about how Labor sees asylum seekers. We learn only that it's trying to please everyone.

The problem persists even in Labor-friendly policy areas. Take education, where the Rudd government announced a bold new focus on literacy and numeracy, much as Howard might have. More recently, it commissioned the Gonski review, but tied its hands on the question of private school funding so the panel couldn't even consider cutting it. Then it pledged a response it is yet to detail or fund.

Indeed, its only real response to date has been a bill it hailed as the most important of last year, but which had nothing in it at all. Explicitly. It has a section specifically saying the bill creates no rights or obligations on anyone - especially the government. To paraphrase, ''section 10: this legislation does not exist''.

Even Labor's most significant reform, the carbon tax, merely symbolises the party's ideological malaise. The government's heftiest achievement isn't even its own policy. Indeed, it was so infamously promised not to be its policy.

Remember the citizens' assembly? That was Gillard's pledge before the last election: a random gathering of ordinary people who would somehow reach a consensus on pricing carbon. That's a process, not a policy. It's the kind of thing you do when you want to announce something but you're not prepared to commit to a compelling vision of your own.

As the opposition hammers it on Labor's broken pledge to deliver a surplus this financial year, the government seems to have found some coherence. Confronted with falling corporate profit (and therefore falling tax revenue), it had a choice: either keep finding cuts that would make lots of people unemployed and deflate the economy, or prioritise jobs and growth. It's a nice line. It sounds like a Labor line. But it follows years of saying the opposite; of elevating the surplus to some inviolable standard of good economic management; of saying the main game was giving the Reserve Bank ''room to cut interest rates''. And this in the face of the ever-lengthening queue of economists advising to the contrary.

In short, Labor had bought wholly into the Coalition's narrative for no discernible reason. It conceded the philosophical debate, then lost the political fight. So now, when it has finally found a Labor story to tell, it sounds convenient and insincere. Labor has become a liberal party, so it isn't even convincing when it sounds like itself.

That's not about incompetent leadership; it is the flipside of the Hawke/Keating legacy. Once Labor embraced a deregulated, liberal economy, the political landscape was forever changed, leaving a diabolical question for subsequent Labor leaders: what exactly is the point of Labor politics? The compromise has been to talk about Labor's ''reforming tradition'', but reform is an act, not an ideology. WorkChoices was a reform, too.

Labor has been chasing its base ever since. Often it watched helplessly as workers became small business owners and turned into Howard's socially conservative battlers. Labor cannot offer them industrial protection, and desperately doesn't want to offend their cultural sensibilities, which is why it says things like ''tough but humane''.

The result is that Labor cannot even compete on social and cultural politics. Hence the flight to the Greens, the party Gillard so venomously dismissed this week as a ''party of protest''. To which the most devastating reply is surely: ''Fine. But what are you?''


Read more: http://www.theage.com.au/opinion/politics/labor-has-lost-the-plot-and-the-narrative-20130221-2eua9.html#ixzz2LaS7vY28

 

[KnightersRevenge]

*snap*

I was just about to post this. What do think of his points? The media and John Howard and the right in general have done such an effective job of bastardising the left over the past decade that it is tough to see how you can sell anything that comes from the "left". All lefties are bleeding hearts, or pinkos.

 

[happytige]

Excellent article!